Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Fox Hacks Fark

Posted by kdawson on Fri Aug 17, 2007 04:05 PM
from the rule-number-one-is-see-rule-number-one dept.
circletimessquare writes "Valleywag.com is reporting on a case of a hacker not covering his tracks. It seems that, via a targeted email, an admin at Fark.com downloaded a trojan, which was used to steal passwords for Fark servers. Notably, these activities were traced to an IP address in Memphis Tennessee, and to a Fox News new-media reporter. As to the veracity of the story, that is bolstered by the fact that the story was greenlit for the front page of Fark. Motive? That could range from Fark being a rumored Fox takeover target, to stealing source code for a competing Fox social networking site. If the story is true, laws have been broken, but perhaps not by the Fox News reporter: it's possible his computer was hacked as well. Whatever the truth, it's a very entertaining read, as it pushes a number of hot buttons."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Hah. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Klickoris (1104419) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:07PM (#20267831) Homepage
    Fox is an internet hate machine.
    • Re:Hah. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Leftist Troll (825839) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:23PM (#20268035)
      Internet? Fox is a real life hate machine.
            • Re:Hah. (Score:4, Insightful)

              by rtb61 (674572) on Saturday August 18 2007, @03:51AM (#20274221) Homepage
              Fox Networks by no stretch of the imagination has a conservative bias. Everybody keeps using that word but I definitely don't believe you know what it means if they associate it with the Fox Network.

              Conservative style politics is politics that is resistant to change, prefers the status quo, avoids war, has no interest global expansion, deplores increased government spending, they demand privacy, insist upon the respect of private property, and loathe the concentration of power.

              That the term conservative has been flagrantly hijacked by the pseudo Christian lobbyists party (the republicans) and by corporate mass media is with out question, that the term conservative is actually being used to camouflage, gross corporate exploitation of the conservative electorate is self evident.

              The Fox Network is a relic of the past, an abusive of the truth, bereft of honesty, network whose only goal is profit without limits, and the damage done to a society and those middle class conservative members who make up that society, just seems to motivate Fox Network to ever greater excesses. The Network seems to be going out of it's way to support the ruination of the US economy and the elimination of the actual real conservative middle class.

    • Re:Hah. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dormann (793586) on Friday August 17 2007, @05:02PM (#20268465)
      For those that didn't get the reference [youtube.com].
  • by RunFatBoy.net (960072) * on Friday August 17 2007, @04:07PM (#20267835)
    So, did this Phillips guy develop the trojan that stole the Fark passwords? Did this guy minor in CompSci?

    So a news anchor has hacked Fark in an attempt to possibly steal source code for their own social networking site?
    This apparently isn't your average local anchor.

    Jim
    RunFatBoy ( http://www.runfatboy.net/ [runfatboy.net] ) - A workout plan for beginners.
    • by Xtravar (725372) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:11PM (#20267893) Homepage Journal

      So, did this Phillips guy develop the trojan that stole the Fark passwords? Did this guy minor in CompSci?
      He sent a trojan. Any idiot can do that, with the plethora of pre-built and easily customizable trojans out there.

      Not to mention, it doesn't take a genius to write a trojan and any hobbyist programmer can do it (though maybe a little harder now with "enhanced security" in Windows").
      • But what idiot runs a trojan?
        Not only that what is he doing running Windows?
        Well I will not need to go to Fark every again.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          But what idiot runs a trojan?
          Not only that what is he doing running Windows?
          Well I will not need to go to Fark every again.
          So, you wouldn't read a blog just because an author uses Windows?

          Your dedication as an ideologue is impressive, and appropriate for a story involving Fox and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
          • Your dedication as an ideologue is impressive, and appropriate for a story involving Fox and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

            That's right, just keep telling yourself Rupert Murdoch isn't in it for the money...
      • by Viper Daimao (911947) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:53PM (#20268387) Journal

        He sent a trojan. Any idiot can do that,
        yes but we're talking about a reporter here!

    • So a news anchor has hacked Fark in an attempt to possibly steal source code for their own social networking site?
      This apparently isn't your average local anchor.

      That was my first thought as well. Then I realized that even an idiot can hire someone from say "rentacoder" to write them a trojan, then email it off to the victim.

      That doesn't mean the guy is guilty of course. Only that lack of knowledge or technical expertise doesn't clear him.

    • Fox News Reporter == Journalist?

      Well, actually, even my own biased opinion wouldn't label most Fox employees as 'not journalists' - but everytime I consider the Fox news network as a whole, I just can't think of it as a news network.

      Ryan Fenton
      • by ArcherB (796902) * on Friday August 17 2007, @04:27PM (#20268095) Journal
        Fox News Reporter == Journalist?

        Well, actually, even my own biased opinion wouldn't label most Fox employees as 'not journalists' - but everytime I consider the Fox news network as a whole, I just can't think of it as a news network.


        This was not a reporter from the cable Fox News Channel, but a news anchor from a local Fox TV station. You know, the same one that shows Family Guy and The Simpsons. That is not FNC, which shows Bill O'reilly and Geraldo.

        • IF this guy is guilty (and he could be hacked and framed himself), i think it is certain the guy is just a lone idiot. the question being: why would fox hack fark? there's no valid reason for them to do that. but there is a valid reason for a new media reporter trying to build a social networking site!

          having said that (that the hacking in question here most definitely is not representative of fox news), it is intellectually dishonest of you to draw distance between a local fox station and the national one i
        • by Otter (3800) on Friday August 17 2007, @05:10PM (#20268523) Journal
          This was not a reporter from the cable Fox News Channel, but a news anchor from a local Fox TV station.

          Where are all you guys getting "news anchor" from? (I'm not even going to ask where the submitter and editor hallucinated "reporter" from.) The article describes him as the "new media manager" -- i.e. the head of their website and related activities.

          The elaborate fantasies in the link still seem unlikely, but this is a relatively tech-savvy guy, not the sportscaster.

      • by grahamsz (150076) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:38PM (#20268219) Homepage Journal
        I put up an aggregator for a myself and a few other disaffected farkers and it was coded from scratch in about a day, and even to date has probably less than two man weeks of coding in it.

        I'm not sure how you could be smart enough to set up a trojan to gather passwords but not either run your own OS forum or code one from scratch.

        it's not rocket science
  • by proudfoot (1096177) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:08PM (#20267845)
    Maybe fox can do a report on themselves now. Investigative journalism hits a new low. And I'm not quite sure the "it's for an article excuse will fly this time"
  • Huh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VonSkippy (892467) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:09PM (#20267853) Homepage
    If the ongoing RIAA shenanigans have taught us nothing else, it's that IP does NOT equal personal Identity.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Yes, the summary does admit he may have been hacked, but it is a tech saavy reporter we are talking about here. The three most probable events are that he did it, he got someone else to do it, or he was framed. Foil hat aside, one of the first two guesses is most likely.

      Let us not forget that reporters often forget that they are also within the law when they are covering a story. Perhaps he did all this without thinking he was breaking a law.
  • Wait, the fact that it was greenlit on Fark indicates that it is true?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Wait, the fact that it was greenlit on Fark indicates that it is true?

      No, the fact that is was greenlit by Fark and that it unblinkingly bashes Fox does that. If it had been an IP address at NPR, that would be different. Then there would have be peer review, done by Digg.
    • if the admins on fark are willing to link the story to the front page, then the story is probably true. fark would not link this to their front page and the story was unverified unless they were really really stupid. and who could verify it? well, howabout fark itself?

      otherwise, fox could turn around and cry foul themselves, a smear campaign, perhaps libel, etc. if valleywag.com made this up or has a bad source, fark would not link to the story, and they would know better than anyone else

      then there is the whole liberal bias thing: no. fark is not a liberal website #1, they are pretty even handed with the conservative and liberal spun links. and #2, even if fark were liberal, if you are going to smear someone, you don't stick your neck out in this way. you smear them in such a way that someone else's reputation is on the line. fark is putting it's own reputation on the line by questioning fox's reputation here. you don't want blowback here, which fark certainly would get if it got out the story was phony, and it would permanently diminish fark's good name (such as it is) if this was a phony story. thus the care involved in greenlighting the story or not

      so it's a rare case of the story being about the news, and one of the players in the story being a news aggregator site. what that means is is that you have an added level of verification automatically involved right there that you would not otherwise have

      however, in fox's defense, if you want to talk about smearing someone, i can think of no better devilish smear than hacking a fox news reporter's computer, and framing the guy as a hacker. brilliant

      but in such a case, you would expect the reporter to immediately allay with fark in just as much anger, anger at getting framed, and demand from his cable provider comcast records of inbound ip connections to his computer in the time frame outbound connections to fark were discovered by fark. any sheepishness, avoidance, or reticence on the reporter's part would pretty much spell doom for the guy's reputation

      and note that: the reporter's reputation. i don't at all think this is the work of news corp, rupert murdoch, or even the local fox tv station. if the reporter is guilty, he's obviously just a lone idiot, not part of some vast conservative conspiracy

  • by nuzak (959558) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:19PM (#20267993) Journal
    When you're done clearing your throat, mind telling us what the title of the story is?
  • by Brian Knotts (855) <bknotts.cascadeaccess@com> on Friday August 17 2007, @04:22PM (#20268015)
    Fox News Channel is an entirely different thing than a local Fox affiliate, even one that is owned by News Corp. The summary above should make that more clear.
    • Fox News Channel is an entirely different thing than a local Fox affiliate, even one that is owned by News Corp. The summary above should make that more clear.

      Ah, you're new here!
    • You might mess with kdawson's "narrative"! Can't have that!
    • hello, i wrote that summary

      it's not just an affiliate, it's not just getting house, 24, and the simpsons

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHBQ-TV [wikipedia.org]

      it's owned by rupert murdoch. if you hadn't noticed, murdoch has a pretty solid track record of seeding his media acquisitions with his particular conservative point of view ...and, btw, there's nothing wrong with rupert murdoch seeding his conservative point of view in his media acquisitions. it's a free country, and his media conglomerate has obviously done quite well financially by addressing a conservative fan base. good for him, good for fox news (local and national)

      however, it is certainly disingenuous of you to think that distancing fox affiliates from each other is supposed to instill innoculation for fox (national) from implication for this hack

      no: the proper way for you to innoculate fox from the implications of any wrongdoing here is to point out, compellingly and reasonably, that this is probably the actions of a lone idiot, not fox news (local) or fox news (national)

      IF this guy is guilty (and he could be hacked and framed himself), i think it is certain the guy is just a lone idiot. the question being: why would fox hack fark? there's no valid reason for them to do that. but there is a valid reason for a new media reporter trying to build a social networking site to do that

      having said that (that the hacking in question here most definitely is not representative of fox news), it is intellectually dishonest of you to draw distance between a local fox station and the national one in this case as a defensive posture. they are all owned by rupert murdoch. maybe you just didn't know, but it sounds like you're spinning
  • Fox outfoxed by Fark when Fox's farked fark of Fark was farked.
  • Heh (Score:3, Funny)

    by ShaunC (203807) * on Friday August 17 2007, @04:25PM (#20268053) Homepage
    He just wanted a catchy on-air slogan for when he jumped back over to the local NBC affiliate.

    "Darrell Phillips... HACK-tion News 5!"
  • by Undead Ed (1068120) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:27PM (#20268087)
    Probably not a good idean to say that out loud three times quickly in front of the kids.

    Undead Ed
  • by grahamsz (150076) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:32PM (#20268133) Homepage Journal
    Really... is there anything remarkable about the source code that runs sites like fark or slashdot. I hand-rolled my own [bannination.com] similar aggregator in a few days and it's evident that the users make the community and not the software.

    Short of collecting personal information, I can't see what value is there.
  • by east coast (590680) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:33PM (#20268149)
    Come on. Who hasn't hacked fark?

    Err... I mean... yeah... this is terrible. Terrible I tell you.
  • by zCyl (14362) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:34PM (#20268161)
    From the article, "Phillips also purchased, using PayPal, a paid subscription to TotalFark, a premium Fark service. The accounts all used the same IP addresses as the hacker." This makes it look a lot more like it was actually the individual. This is not just a case of the attack coming from an IP of a possibly compromised computer.

    For it to be a different individual, someone would have had to compromise the PayPal account of Phillips without him noticing. I expect there would be a shocked response from Phillips if this had been the case. Instead, the website of Darrell Phillips [dnphillips.com] seems to be blank today.
    • good point (Score:5, Funny)

      by commodoresloat (172735) * on Friday August 17 2007, @05:27PM (#20268695) Homepage
      Paypal would inform him right away if his account had been compromised. In fact, this happened to me and paypal informed me in an email; the email had a link to a website where I could enter my paypal password and fix the problem.

      I'm not sure where all my money went though.
  • by m1cha (970250) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:49PM (#20268349)
    He'll get over it. /last post
  • by greymond (539980) on Friday August 17 2007, @05:13PM (#20268557) Homepage Journal
    Where did Fark's BOOB section go?
    • by gclef (96311) on Friday August 17 2007, @05:19PM (#20268605)
      It went here [foobies.com]. Now, don't come complaining to me about hairy palms or blindness...in fact, don't even tell me what you did at all.
    • hrm. right there under adult content link on the right hand side. oh. you aren't a total farker. If you like fark, pay the $5 a month for information overload and more boobies than you can shake a stick at. Yes, that stick you sick bastard. /serious cat //serious thread ///slashies ftw
  • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Friday August 17 2007, @05:47PM (#20268913) Homepage Journal
    Slashdot had better be on the lookout. Somebody might send CmdrTaco a trojan in an attempt to steal the Slashcode!
    • by iron-kurton (891451) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:20PM (#20267997)
      Why would Fox buy Fark? For starters, Fark gets a ton of traffic. They have a ton of paying subscribers.

      They are probably not after the source code or anything that ridiculous. They are pulling the same stunt they did a few months back with Photobucket -- give them negative publicity and drive down the bidding prices (assuming Fark is on the market). If you recall, Photobucket sold for like 1/3 of the original price because MySpace -- owned by Fox -- broke the linkage between their servers and Photobucket. Dirty, but brilliant.

      Too bad Fark didn't fall for it. Go get 'em Drew!!!
    • Whereas you, I suppose, are the picture of objectivity?

      If you find the articles and/or conversations here, you always have the option of, you know, not reading them.

    • everything on the face of the world turn their attention to things that are threat to their survival whenever such occurences come up, leaving what they were busy with at that moment for a while. likewise, slashdot and many other sites, institutes, foundations, civil organizations and even individuals have turned their attention to things that are threatening their existence and what they do and stand for - like erosion of civil rights, freedom, any liberty under the yoke of bush & co, and etc.
    • And I thought there were nothing but bubble-headed fucktards over at Fox. Of course, doing anything of this nature (and getting caught at it) is still pretty fucktarded. So perhaps I can rest secure in my preconceived notions of those guys over there...

      You know what is really fucktarded? Confusing Fox News with a local Fox TV station. One shows the Simpsons, one shows O'reilly. This was the Simpsons one.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          "Hoooney, come upstairs for dinner! I made meatloaf..."

          "Not now Mom, I'm CALLING PEOPLE FUCKTARDS ON THE INTERNET!!"
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Sounds like you are banned. That's what they do. Much less confrontational that way.